Another Climate Truth Bomb

Maybe the link should be changed directly to the video it discusses?

The article is purely a link to this YouTube video: https://youtu.be/4S9sDyooxf4

The article itself as I read it doesn't really contribute or expand the concepts in the video and instead is a call to action (not defined) as it assumes you've watched the video, basically I'm just not confident the article contributes anything to the subject its presenting.

COVID taught me that we can’t align on absolutely anything.

Problem with climate discussions is that 99.9% of people don’t have any impact whatsoever (drinking through paper straws or buying eco friendly t-shirts doesn’t change a thing).

Nothing is actionable. People who could make an impact won’t because it’s not in their personal interest - e.g. jet flying celebrities or owners of industrial companies.

Maybe Fermi's Paradox filter isn’t some big cosmic event but a simple industry optimization problem. Many planets had intelligent life but industrialization, as a form of energy transformation, boils everyone before they can make a contact or travel through space.

The video this is referencing is by a pretty internet-famous scientist, Sabine Hossenfelder, who is NOT a climate scientist. She produces videos on various topics in science, in- and outside of her field.

I personally am of the opinion that an academic education in one field does not qualify someone sufficiently to produce critically interesting or novel content in another field (without an existing track record of doing science in that field, at least).

With a degree in Comp Sci I would be very careful to make any educational statements about state of the art medicine, even if I could sufficiently understand and explain basic concepts to people due to my academic education and ability to read papers.

My takeaway:

> Because this is what the hard evidence-based science is beginning to reveal about just how far into the deep end of shit creek we have paddled. It is important to at least see what that expert science is saying first-hand.

> We have about 20 years left until global collapse of civilisation as we know it.

I wonder if past civilizations ever had knowledge of their impending doom, studied it, and still took effectively no action to avert disaster? Will we be unique in seeing the train coming and collectively refusing to take action to get off the tracks?

I don't think as individual we can do anything except:

1. Build energy independence by switching to renewable energy sources for your home.

2. Acquire skills that might be useful in a changing climate, such as gardening, home repair, or first aid.

3. Maintain mental health while dealing with the realities of climate change

I hate this. I will be about 44 years old when global civilization is projected to collapse.

I get so much anxiety not even really knowing what kind of future I should be planning for. Is it worth saving money for some kind of retirement? Is it worth having kids? Should I just be traveling and seeing as much of the world as I can now before it’s gone?

There’s no satisfying solution. I could spend my whole life planning for an apocalypse that never comes, or I can just live my life as we always have and just accept the possibility of me and my family dying young and miserable as a result of not doing anything to prepare for the collapse.

It's ironic that most preppers are actually improperly prepared. Lone wolf preppers hiding MREs in the walls of their condos in the middle of a city is total futility. They should be 1. establishing self-sustaining homestead-farms using organic and natural methods eliminating external dependencies, 2. stockpiling valuable agricultural and food processing machinery, 3. learning how to defend themselves and their property, and 4. networking and aligning with other families to surround themselves with others for mutual cooperation and defense. Or, be a billionaire, buy some or all of an island and keep supplies only long enough for 5 years... but then what?

Like the fall of the Roman republic, it will slip away gradually punctuated by sudden shifts. Food will eventually become absurdly-expensive. Most incomes will gradually become more and more devoted to food, and poverty and disease will mushroom like nothing else in history.

Police departments and militaries will become understaffed before breaking down and ceding their arms to local defense militias and criminal gangs. As a single anecdotal example of unsustainable problems today, Austin PD's morale is terrible and has 250 unfilled officer positions. They don't respond to most calls for 36-48 hours unless there are lives at risk. The falls of major population centers into chaos won't necessarily be synchronous.

Few notes: climate change is a fact we all can observe, there is no point in talking about climate models, who tend to change far faster than climate and have many limits, no point in talking about mean temperature most people simply do not understand AND for good reasons.

The point is ENDING the narrative of "reversing" climate change because even if, and I doubt, only (not also) an outcome of anthropic activities, results could potentially be seen after a century or more and in that timeframe we will be all dead. The point is simply telling that we need to adapt QUICKLY meaning be ready for mass relocations, so wars, displaced productions activities in particular agricultural, long complex supply chain malfunctioning and regular disruptions and so on.

That is commonly named "resilience" but is narrate as an ancillary part of the debate not the main point. This imply we need to build new homes, for various reasons ranging from energy needs to mere relocation needs because actual ones are in a too frequently flooded are, a zone where having enough rainwater it's more and more an issue, where melting permafrost generate too much ground infra disruption and so on. Since we do not REALLY know how things will evolve, it's not only climate but also human wars who will generate much different human scenarios, we should be distributed for resilience and have as much as slack we can for anything (energy, food, appliances, ...).

All the above mean that's about time to drop the smart city push, a nazi-like scenario, modern Fordlandia equally distopic and untenable in a changing world to state a simple thing: we can do the new deal, but the new deal is incompatible with finance capitalism. We must came back to a spread vivid economy where anyone own a bit. That's why we see especially in the west a very hard breaks apply on the new deal. That's why we see more and more neo-malthussian ideas spreading.

A path to resilience is:

- redundancy

- as much as possible (not much, but something is possible) autonomy

- diversity

- simple infrastructure (because they are fast to change/repair/rebuild and cheap)

A simple example: a spread area of single family homes get flooded or hit by an earthquake, well, being nearly all light buildings spread enough the distressed people are not so much to makes rescue operations impossible, posing temporary housing modules and local p.v. (eventually recovery parts of the one already in place) it's doable, all ops can be done normally by air and involve things light/small enough to be easy spread by air. A counter example a dense city, rescuing is damn hard because there is no room to move, too many people to rescue in a single area, NOTHING made to be distributed so most of the infra broken beyond quick restore ability. Much higher restoring costs and much more time needed. It's a very simple example, but good enough to understand. Another simple one: a small "cube" (1000l clean water tank) in line with the aqueduct, fill by a simple float faucet, pushing water to the home with a small pump + a small pressurized tank with the "bubble" to keep the pressure constant and some small potatoes stuff (a clapet valve, a pressostat etc) cost at current hyper inflated prices some 200€, give few days of water autonomy to a home. It's simple tech that allow for comfort during uncomfortable situations and allow calmer and cheaper response.